Intraperitoneal prophylactic drain (IPD) use in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is still controversial. A survey was designed to investigate surgeons’ use of IPD in PD patients through 23 questions and one clinical vignette. For the clinical scenario, respondents were asked to report their regret of omission and commission regarding the use of IPD elicited on a scale between 0 (no regret) and 100 (maximum regret). The threshold model and a multilevel mixed regression were applied. One hundred three (97.2%) respondents confirmed using at least two IPDs. The median regret due to the omission of IPD was 84 (67–100, IQR). The median regret due to the commission of IPD was 10 (3.5–20, IQR). The CR-POPF probability threshold at which drainage omission was the less regrettable choice was 3% (1–50, IQR). The threshold was lower for those surgeons who performed minimally invasive PD (P = 0.048), adopted late removal (P = 0.002), perceived FRS able to predict the risk (P = 0.006), and IPD able to avoid relaparotomy P = 0.036). Drain management policies after PD remain heterogeneous among surgeons. The regret model suggested that IPD omission could be performed in low-risk patients.
Intraperitoneal prophylactic drain after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an Italian survey / Ricci, Claudio; Pecorelli, Nicolò; Esposito, Alessandro; Capretti, Giovanni; Partelli, Stefano; Butturini, Giovanni; Boggi, Ugo; Cucchetti, Alessandro; Zerbi, Alessandro; Salvia, Roberto; Falconi, Massimo; null, null; Alberici, Laura; Aleotti, Francesca; Alfieri, Sergio; Angrisani, Marco; Anselmo, Alessandro; Bannone, Elisa; Barabino, Matteo; Belfiori, Giulio; Belli, Andrea; Belli, Giulio; Bonatti, Chiara; Borgia, Gianluca; Caccamo, Lucio; Campra, Donata; Caputo, Damiano; Casadei, Riccardo; Cescon, Matteo; Citterio, Davide; Colangelo, Ettore; Colledan, Michele; Coppola, Roberto; Crippa, Stefano; Dall'Olio, Tommaso; De Carlis, Luciano; De Giorgi, Donato; De Luca, Raffaele; Del Vecchio, Antonella; Valle, Raffaele Della; Di Benedetto, Fabrizio; Di Dato, Armando; Di Domenico, Stefano; Di Meo, Giovanni; Di Sebastiano, Pierluigi; Giuseppe, Maria Ettorre; Fogliati, Alessandro; Frena, Antonio; Gavazzi, Francesco; Giacomo, Batignani; Giannotti, Luca; Giuliante, Felice; Grazi, Gian Luca; Grottola, Tommaso; Gruttadauria, Salvatore; Ingaldi, Carlo; Isabella, Frigerio; Izzo, Francesco; La Barba, Giuliano; Langella, Serena; Lionetto, Gabriella; Lombardi, Raffaele; Maganuco, Lorenzo; Maggino, Laura; Malleo, Giuseppe; Manzini, Lorenzo; Marchegiani, Giovanni; Marchetti, Alessio; Marcucci, Stefano; Massani, Marco; Mastrangelo, Laura; Mazzaferro, Vincenzo; Mazzola, Michele; Memeo, Riccardo; Anna, Caterina Milanetto; Mocchegiani, Federico; Moraldi, Luca; Moro, Francesco; Napoli, Niccolò; Nappo, Gennaro; Nardo, Bruno; Carlo, Alberto Pacilio; Paiella, Salvatore; Papis, Davide; Patriti, Alberto; Patrono, Damiano; Prosperi, Enrico; Puglisi, Silvana; Ramera, Marco; Ravaioli, Matteo; Rocca, Aldo; Ruzzente, Andrea; Sacco, Luca; Scialantrone, Grazia; Serenari, Matteo; Tamburrino, Domenico; Tatani, Bruna; Troisi, Roberto; Veneroni, Luigi; Vivarelli, Marco; Zanello, Matteo; Zanus, Giacomo; Caterina, Costanza Zingaretti; Zironda, Andrea. - In: UPDATES IN SURGERY. - ISSN 2038-131X. - ELETTRONICO. - 76:(2024), pp. 923-932. [10.1007/s13304-024-01836-0]
Intraperitoneal prophylactic drain after pancreaticoduodenectomy: an Italian survey
Giacomo, BatignaniMembro del Collaboration Group
;Grazi, Gian LucaMembro del Collaboration Group
;Moraldi, LucaMembro del Collaboration Group
;
2024
Abstract
Intraperitoneal prophylactic drain (IPD) use in pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is still controversial. A survey was designed to investigate surgeons’ use of IPD in PD patients through 23 questions and one clinical vignette. For the clinical scenario, respondents were asked to report their regret of omission and commission regarding the use of IPD elicited on a scale between 0 (no regret) and 100 (maximum regret). The threshold model and a multilevel mixed regression were applied. One hundred three (97.2%) respondents confirmed using at least two IPDs. The median regret due to the omission of IPD was 84 (67–100, IQR). The median regret due to the commission of IPD was 10 (3.5–20, IQR). The CR-POPF probability threshold at which drainage omission was the less regrettable choice was 3% (1–50, IQR). The threshold was lower for those surgeons who performed minimally invasive PD (P = 0.048), adopted late removal (P = 0.002), perceived FRS able to predict the risk (P = 0.006), and IPD able to avoid relaparotomy P = 0.036). Drain management policies after PD remain heterogeneous among surgeons. The regret model suggested that IPD omission could be performed in low-risk patients.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
s13304-024-01836-0.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Pdf editoriale (Version of record)
Licenza:
Open Access
Dimensione
704.78 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
704.78 kB | Adobe PDF |
I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.



